- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Jeremy Hill had the best explanation about the fumble recovery that was not.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:57 pm
Hanagriff said bad rule but correct call.
Hill says (I am paraphrasing) the rule was correct but the interpretation of the possession of the ball for LSU was the problem.
I agree with Hill. What is possession? I think the moment Brooks has 2 hands on the ball it is possession. The player out of bounds touching the ball kills the play. So LSU ball. I think the person out of bounds should be an illegal touching and should be awarded to recovering team. If ball is not held in possession and touched by out of bounds player. Ball goes back to Offensive team. Brooks clearly had 2 hands on the ball and control. The Bama players reaches in and touches ball knocks it out of Brooks hands. But that should kill the play. Not give it back to Bama.
Edit: Something needs to change in review process. This call was not even close as bad as the Tennessee saftey that was not a safety. That call was as bad as the Saints no call for PI against the Rams.
It's like I am looking at the Color Red and the replay booth tells me it's White.
Hill says (I am paraphrasing) the rule was correct but the interpretation of the possession of the ball for LSU was the problem.
I agree with Hill. What is possession? I think the moment Brooks has 2 hands on the ball it is possession. The player out of bounds touching the ball kills the play. So LSU ball. I think the person out of bounds should be an illegal touching and should be awarded to recovering team. If ball is not held in possession and touched by out of bounds player. Ball goes back to Offensive team. Brooks clearly had 2 hands on the ball and control. The Bama players reaches in and touches ball knocks it out of Brooks hands. But that should kill the play. Not give it back to Bama.
Edit: Something needs to change in review process. This call was not even close as bad as the Tennessee saftey that was not a safety. That call was as bad as the Saints no call for PI against the Rams.
It's like I am looking at the Color Red and the replay booth tells me it's White.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 1:22 pm
47
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:59 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
quote:
rooks clearly had 2 hands on the ball
Yes.
quote:
and control.
No.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:59 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
Hill is correct here. There are a million pictures out there that Brooks had “possession” prior to Latu touching it.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:59 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
If you look at it this way it’s objectively absurd that the call on the field was overturned
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:00 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
Overturning the ruling on the field was blatant bias and cheating to help the gumps. No way LSU gets the call if roles were reversed. It doesn’t even get a review. Complete horseshite!
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:00 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
This is exactly what I’ve been saying.
It’s essentially the refs arbitrarily deciding if Brooks’ had “enough” possession. But the standards to overturn on review are supposed to be higher. No one can say the replay was clear on something so utterly subjective.
It’s essentially the refs arbitrarily deciding if Brooks’ had “enough” possession. But the standards to overturn on review are supposed to be higher. No one can say the replay was clear on something so utterly subjective.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:00 pm to CP3forMVP
Two hands is the new divot.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:01 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
What if the out of bounds player recovered the fumble?
He is out of bounds so how can he get possession?
A receiver cannot catch a ball with one foot in and one foot out.
He is out of bounds so how can he get possession?
A receiver cannot catch a ball with one foot in and one foot out.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:02 pm to DeathByTossDive225
If JoJo Earl caught that pass, than Brooks recovered that fumble.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:03 pm to Vacherie Saint
If Brooks wouldn’t have dropped it after grabbing it, I don’t think the call is reversed. That’s where they interpreted it as not having secured the ball.
I still don’t understand the intent of the dumb rule.
I still don’t understand the intent of the dumb rule.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:04 pm to BayouBlitz
How in the frick did he not have control? He had both hands on the ball in a stable position. He was the first one who touched it AND he had control/possession. That's the problem I have with that. I understand rules are rules and I think the rule is dumb. But even with that, it was LSU's ball all around.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:04 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
Correct. As I stated in the other thread on this, the ruling of possession/non-possession is the problem. It was ruled as possession on the field. Its a very subjective call and there was definitely not enough evidence to say he clearly did not have possession. That is the cog in the wheel for the ruling. The out-of-bounds player touching the ball kills the play regardless of anything else. Its all about what happens just before that. Again, it was ruled as a fumble recovery on the field and the replay shows two hands securely around the ball before the OOB player knocks it out.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:04 pm to CP3forMVP
quote:NO, replay booth has many camera angles the networks and jack legs on sidelines don't.
Hill is correct here. There are a million pictures out there that Brooks had “possession” prior to Latu touching it.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:05 pm to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
The thing is, he only bobbled it as he was tucking the ball away because the OOB Gump slapped at it.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:06 pm to Vacherie Saint
I have yet to see the other angle of that pass that would show if he actually caught the pass.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:06 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:As he had already established the possession and was down with the ball in both hands.
The thing is, he only bobbled it as he was tucking the ball away because the OOB Gump slapped at it.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:06 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
It HAS to be conclusive. There was no conclusive evidence that the bammer even touched to ball. He could have whiffed. The entire replay was inconclusive as much as the top/interference play was.
Can’t be inconsistent but the refs were both to help bama
Can’t be inconsistent but the refs were both to help bama
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:07 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
It was all about conclusive evidence.
Call on field was a fumble recovery & LSU ball and it should have stayed that way.
Pretty simple
Call on field was a fumble recovery & LSU ball and it should have stayed that way.
Pretty simple
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:08 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
quote:
Brooks clearly had 2 hands on the ball and control. T
I don’t know about the control, but I know that, by rule, the refs had to be stone cold 100% certain that he DID NOT have possession in order to overturn the call on the field.
And that was impossible.
Therefore, it was a bad call.
Logic.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 1:08 pm to choupiquesushi
quote:
many camera angles the networks and jack legs on sidelines don't.
Doubtful, but even if true, you won't convince me any other angle would disprove possession.
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News